Patriots Trade For Rams WR Greg Salas

[West Philly Patriot]

Hopefully we will get a nice look at Salas v Edelman for week 1 and 2. Its my hope Gaff is back by week 3.

 

[patfanken]

Tracy White is the de facto special teams captain. I guess you were questioning the value of Larry Izzo to the New England Patriots as well last decade?

Tracy White is NOT any "defacto captain". That's just something you made up. He IS a very good special teams player who can't play a lick of ILB when he's had the chance/ He IS a player who hasn't done anything all TC to earn his spot. Even Larry Izzo in his heyday had to re-earn his spot every year, and was a far better LB

Like I said White has been a good special teams player, but not THAT good that he demands a roster spot reserved for him.

 

[ATippett56]

He IS a player who hasn't done anything all TC to earn his spot.

Neither has a tight end who currently on the roster.

 

[Ring 6]

Tracy White is NOT any "defacto captain". That's just something you made up. He IS a very good special teams player who can't play a lick of ILB when he's had the chance/ He IS a player who hasn't done anything all TC to earn his spot. Even Larry Izzo in his heyday had to re-earn his spot every year, and was a far better LB

Like I said White has been a good special teams player, but not THAT good that he demands a roster spot reserved for him.

Your tone sounds like you feel his isn't at practice simply due to indifference.
Would you endorse cutting a player who is one of your best 53 because an injury is holding him back, even if he may miss a couple of weeks, just because missing practice requires being penalized?
I could take or leave the guy frankly, but I think the inference that he is able to practice but won't and therefore deserves to be punished is misplaced.

 

[Ring 6]

Neither has a tight end who currently on the roster.

You better hope Mr. Shaincoe does not become maimed or killed in a household accident, or the police will be at your door as the prime suspect.

 

[ATippett56]

You better hope Mr. Shaincoe does not become maimed or killed in a household accident, or the police will be at your door as the prime suspect.

In my response to Patfanken, did I specifically mention a tight end by name?

 

[Ring 6]

If Gaffney returns, it's essentially the WR group many expected, minus Branch. At that point, every common play grouping (2 WR/2/TE/1RB, etc....) would be available in a way that it could create mismatches, as long as Salas works out well enough that opponents need to account for him.

What might be more interesting, from a "how do they all fit?" standpoint, would be a combination of Branch returning and Gaffney not coming back.

Yes, Gaffney seems like a much better fit.
I don't know if both makes a lot of sense, given that one (Branch) would either be inactive or mostly on the sidelines unless there were injuries.
Do you keep an aging WR to sit in case of an injury or a younger one you can develop? I could argue either side.

 

[Ring 6]

In my response to Patfanken, did I specifically mention a tight end by name?

You aren't exactly stealth in what you mean here

 

[The Scrizz]

Where did I ever claim that the Patriots would want the 5 WRs from last year on the field at the same time? Isn't the whole point of what I, and many others, were saying last year and the year before that the Patriots WR corps wasn't good enough and needed to be changed?

Again, you're arguing against a strawman.

And I was talking about being done with your posts, not the whole thread. You just started adding more comedy, so I had to come back and enjoy the chuckles. If you can't see the humor of someone trying to 'prove' that 5 WR sets would be bad by referring to a 5WR group that pretty much everyone agrees would have sucked on the field, I feel for you.

Next, you should argue that everyone's wrong for not thinking that Brady's the team's best QB.

So you wanted the Pats to sink resources into having 5 WR worth having in a 5 WR set? I'm not sure what your point is because you don't seem to have one or at the very least, keep changing it.

The Pats brought in a good amount of depth and competition at WR. Some got hurt and some just weren't good enough. And the fact remains that one or more could still rejoin the team.

Regardless, unless you are bringing in guys like Johnson (the good one) or Fitzgerald there is absolutely no reason for a 5 WR set which necessitates Gronk and AH not being on the field.

Explain to me the 5 WR the Pats could have obtained this off-season to make your point within even the realm of validity.

And the argument was never "do we need to improve the WR's from last year". The argument was that BB likes situational football so much that's it's odd that we don't have a legit 5 WR set that we can put out on the field.

That's what I originally responded to and I can't help if you butted in with nonsense that had nothing to do with that.

 

[Ring 6]

So you wanted the Pats to sink resources into having 5 WR worth having in a 5 WR set? I'm not sure what your point is because you don't seem to have one or at the very least, keep changing it.

The Pats brought in a good amount of depth and competition at WR. Some got hurt and some just weren't good enough. And the fact remains that one or more could still rejoin the team.

Regardless, unless you are bringing in guys like Johnson (the good one) or Fitzgerald there is absolutely no reason for a 5 WR set which necessitates Gronk and AH not being on the field.

Explain to me the 5 WR the Pats could have obtained this off-season to make your point within even the realm of validity.

And the argument was never "do we need to improve the WR's from last year". The argument was that BB likes situational football so much that's it's odd that we don't have a legit 5 WR set that we can put out on the field.

That's what I originally responded to and I can't help if you butted in with nonsense that had nothing to do with that.

Excuse me for interupting this discussion, but I think the discrepancy here is whether a WR group of Welker, Lloyd, Gaffney, Branch, Edelman would create a piece of the gameplan that could be used, that didn't exist last year with less WR talent.
The other side of that is whether taking Gronk and Hernandez off the field to do that would be wise, but you can attack a defense differently with 5 true WRs than 3/2 or 4/1.

 

[ATippett56]

Do you keep an aging WR to sit in case of an injury or a younger one you can develop? I could argue either side.

There is no reason that the New England Patriots can't dress six wide receivers on game day:

QB - 2 (Brady, Mallett)
RB - 3 (Woodhead, Vereen, Ridley)
TE - 3 (Gronkowski, Hernandez, Fells)
WR - 6 (Welker, Lloyd, ??????, Edelman, Salas, Slater)
OL - 7 (Solder, Mankins, Connolly, Thomas/Waters, Vollmer, Wendell, Cannon)

Offense - 21
Special Teams - 3
Defense - 22

 

[The Scrizz]

The original post I responded to:

"As MG somewhat touches on below (Edit: Above), we have Lloyd, Welker, AH and Gronk pulling down the big(ish) salaries -- and they are arguably the 4 guys we want on the field most frequently. With Ridley and Woodhead seeing the field frequently also, WR3 is going to be less important with the Patriots (provided injuries don't bite us).

With that said, undeniably, you are correct regarding your comment on situational football. BB loves it, an important aspect of it is the 5/0/0, we don't have it right now. But this is likely an academic discussion (as you have pointed out in general). I'd be surprised if BB doesn't have a final roster that allows for something very close to a true 5/0/0."

My reply:

"A 5/0/0 when you have players like Gronk and AH is foolhardy. In what universe is there going to be a football situation where having your 4th and 5th WR on the field instead of them?

Let's say we had the 5 WR everyone seems to want - Welker, Lloyd, Gaffney, Branch, and Edelman. Now give me a plausible example of situational football where you have any of the last 3 on the field instead of one of the top 2 TE.

This team can go 5 wide without using 5 WR. That's the whole point of what they've been doing. A 'true' 5/0/0 takes Pro Bowlers off of the field for backups.

Oh, and there is no 'arguably' about it. Welker, Lloyd, Gronk, and AH play 100% of the snaps in an ideal world. The only situational football where all 4 aren't on the field should be short yardage/goal line."

You reply to that:

"two obvious examples

1.) running "no-huddle" when you can get WRs matched up on LBs

2.) just to give the TE1 and TE2 rest

No skill player on the Patriots played 100% of the snaps last year."

Where is my straw man? Where were you saying that the Pats WR weren't good enough to play 5-WR last year?

You gave two examples of why it would be a good idea to have Gronk AND AH off the field at the same time. This was not presented as 'they're both injured' which would be the only plausible reason.

You stated that running 'no huddle' with WR who are worse than Gronk and AH is a football situation that would be chosen over running it with Gronk and AH.

As I said, you're changing your argument and then claiming 'straw man'.

 

[The Scrizz]

Excuse me for interupting this discussion, but I think the discrepancy here is whether a WR group of Welker, Lloyd, Gaffney, Branch, Edelman would create a piece of the gameplan that could be used, that didn't exist last year with less WR talent.
The other side of that is whether taking Gronk and Hernandez off the field to do that would be wise, but you can attack a defense differently with 5 true WRs than 3/2 or 4/1.

That is the argument as I understood it as well. And yes you can attack a defense differently. I just think you would be attacking with worse players.

I like Gaffney, Branch (or Salas), and J-ED just fine as back up WR's. I don't ever want all 5 on the field instead of either of the TE.

 

[The Scrizz]

In my response to Patfanken, did I specifically mention a tight end by name?

I'm pretty sure Andy and I would be called as witnesses for the prosecution.

It's the equivalent of having hours of a mob boss on tape saying they need to whack Visthy 'one ankle' Shiancoe and then when ordering the hit saying go kill that guy.

When 'one ankle' ends up with concrete shoes (or one concrete shoe?) I bet the feds would put that together.

Although I bet that sum***** Silvestro would have been watching his back too if he made the 53.

 

[mgteich]

Your analysis is correct. I expect that the TBD fullback will be active instead of the 6th WR. And yes, that FB and short-yardage back could be Boldin.

We could even have an additional active player on offense. 8 defensive backs and 13 front seven is probably sufficient.

There is no reason that the New England Patriots can't dress six wide receivers on game day:

QB - 2 (Brady, Mallett)
RB - 3 (Woodhead, Vereen, Ridley)
TE - 3 (Gronkowski, Hernandez, Fells)
WR - 6 (Welker, Lloyd, ??????, Edelman, Salas, Slater)
OL - 7 (Solder, Mankins, Connolly, Thomas/Waters, Vollmer, Wendell, Cannon)

Offense - 21
Special Teams - 3
Defense - 22

 

[Deus Irae]

That is the argument as I understood it as well. And yes you can attack a defense differently. I just think you would be attacking with worse players.

I like Gaffney, Branch (or Salas), and J-ED just fine as back up WR's. I don't ever want all 5 on the field instead of either of the TE.

Here's the problem. "Worse players" does not equal "bad idea".

Any time the Patriots run the football instead of having Tom Brady throw it, they are attacking with worse players, yet sometimes it's a good idea. I don't see why this is so difficult for some here to understand.

And I've not changed my argument at all. You've gone to attacking strawmen, though, so we've got that.

 

[ATippett56]

Although I bet that sum***** Silvestro would have been watching his back too if he made the 53.

First, Silvestro is "cheap labor". Second, Silvestro participated in training camp practices and played in the preseason games. Silvestro earned the right to qualify for the 53 man roster.

 

[Ring 6]

There is no reason that the New England Patriots can't dress six wide receivers on game day:

QB - 2 (Brady, Mallett)
RB - 3 (Woodhead, Vereen, Ridley)
TE - 3 (Gronkowski, Hernandez, Fells)
WR - 6 (Welker, Lloyd, ??????, Edelman, Salas, Slater)
OL - 7 (Solder, Mankins, Connolly, Thomas/Waters, Vollmer, Wendell, Cannon)

Offense - 21
Special Teams - 3
Defense - 22

Theoretically sure, but given that the 4th WR will almost never be on the field, and Edelman and Slater will be active and can fill that rare roll, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
I could argue 9 OL could be active, but it doesn't make sense to waste the spot.

 

[ATippett56]

Theoretically sure, but given that the 4th WR will almost never be on the field, and Edelman and Slater will be active and can fill that rare roll, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
I could argue 9 OL could be active, but it doesn't make sense to waste the spot.

Edelman - punt returner
Salas - kick returner
Slater - special teams coverage units

I'd rather have Salas return kickoffs than risk injury to one of the two starting cornerbacks.

 

[Ring 6]

That is the argument as I understood it as well. And yes you can attack a defense differently. I just think you would be attacking with worse players.

I like Gaffney, Branch (or Salas), and J-ED just fine as back up WR's. I don't ever want all 5 on the field instead of either of the TE.

It is a different way to attack. It wouldn't be a primary facet of the gameplan, but it is something that could get use. The skillset of an effective WR vs a great TE is different. I could certainly design plays that would work better with 5 WRs than with 3 WRs and 2 excellent TEs. Not an entire offense, but plays. There are some defenders that Branch is more difficult matchup for than Gronk, even though Gronk is a much better overall receiver.